Dull, dull movie. Wretchedly paced, and padded beyond belief. The action sequences went so over the top that they plunged into the valley of the ridiculous on the far side. Peter Jackson just doesn't know when he's hit the peak or when to stop. D+

My friend wanted to watch the 3-D version. I wanted to watch just a regular projection, non 3-D. But because that version started after 10 PM, we decided to see the 3-D HFR version. that way I can saw that I tried it.

They might have just stuck a power drill to temple to bore the images out. Ten minutes in, I started rubbing my eyes.

The story didn't help. They start with this huge rambling, superfluous progue, then, eight minutes later, they throw in the actual book's opening line "in a whole in the ground there lived a hobbit." That shows that these people have lost their ability to write a coherent screenplay. They forgot that some stories should be simple and whimsical.

It made me think that 2012 sucked for movies.

Also, in the trailer there were scenes where Gandalf is walking up stairs, with his staff lit...

What happened to them? They could be in the next film, but, even more puzzling was the omission of the scene where Bilbo sees "the Sword that was Broken." That never happened in the scene in Rivendell.

^ I imagine that the Rivendell shot will be in the extended version, which has already been cut. The Gandalf one could be too, or maybe has been pushed to part 2.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's kind of hard to tell where that part with Gandalf will go.

He seems to be exploring Dol Guldur, and in the books he did go there several times in the late Third Age to investigate the dark power that had emerged there. About ninety years before The Hobbit Gandalf discovered that it was indeed Sauron at Dol Guldur, and he also found Thráin, Thorin's father, who gave Gandalf the map and the key to Erebor.

For most of the part of the book that The Desolation of Smaug will cover, Gandalf is away from the Company doing other things. That's why I assume he'll be exploring Dol Guldur in the second movie and will confirm that the Necromancer is Sauron. But if he also finds Thráin there during that visit, that won't explain how he acquired the map and the key.

Speaking of the extended version, I wonder if it'll give us a glimpse of young Aragorn. He was about ten years old and known only as Estel at this point. It'd be cool if maybe Bilbo meets him, or something.

What? 2012 has been widely considered as one of the best years for movies in quite some time.

Click to expand...

When I have some time, I'll elaborate on this post, but here's what comes to mind:

The Dark Knight Rises: - hard to believe that G. I. Joe moved to next year to avoid being near this one when G. I. Joe, whoile looking shallow and dumb, look like a fun summer blockbuster. And the fact that TDKR was a mess didn't help.

Skyfall: Why did Bond have to go to Shanghai to beat up a bad guy instead of down the block? For no good reason, save that Shanghai looked much better in the publicity stills. A hallow mess of a film that was a thinly-veiled copy of The Dark Knight and Straw Dogs.

Looper: A clever idea for a short subject that can't fill out a full-length film no matter how much people seem to justify it.

Avengers: I liked this one quite a bit. I even bought and I enjoy it. the last forty minutes felt like a real comic book come to life. Still, much of the script, upon re-watching, feels padded and dumb and difficult to get through. Does anyone really remember or care why Loki and Hawkeye wanted some old man's eye ball signature? Was Whedon really trying to fool both us and the characters into thinking that they were bringing Banner in solely for his expertise in Gamma rays? Please. Still, this film gets a pass but it's hardly an excellent film.

Also, in the trailer there were scenes where Gandalf is walking up stairs, with his staff lit...

What happened to them? They could be in the next film, but, even more puzzling was the omission of the scene where Bilbo sees "the Sword that was Broken." That never happened in the scene in Rivendell.

Click to expand...

I don't think you get to both complain about the director not being able to cut anything and then complain about things being cut.

Dull, dull movie. Wretchedly paced, and padded beyond belief. The action sequences went so over the top that they plunged into the valley of the ridiculous on the far side. Peter Jackson just doesn't know when he's hit the peak or when to stop. D+

Click to expand...

See that's how I see the LOTR films, though not such a low grade, but for me somehow Hobbit overcame these problems and was interesting. Perhaps a bit padded in spots (I think they could have left out the rock creatures their CR was too high for our heroes to survive) but Hobbit, for me had more interesting characters.

There's no need. I was just surprised to hear someone say that it was a bad year for movies when such well received films as "The Master," "Lincoln," "Zero Dark Thirty," "Not Fade Away," "The Loneliest Planet," "Amour," and quite a few more have come out.

There's no need. I was just surprised to hear someone say that it was a bad year for movies when such well received films as "The Master," "Lincoln," "Zero Dark Thirty," "Not Fade Away," "The Loneliest Planet," "Amour," and quite a few more have come out.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen all of those.

I guess I was referring to the genre films that people on this particular forum have been talking about.

I saw the the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey two days and I was totally awestruck! I came with some low expectations fearing slow pacing, clumsy scenes and 'fake' CGI but none of my fears came true.

About the slow pacing; I'm not sure what the critics and other reviewers are talking about. That first flashback scene was totally awesome, the scene with Frodo and the older Bilbo was a touch of magic, and about thirty minutes in they were all off on the adventure! The pacing is just the same as LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring if not a bit faster and more action packed.

The story is just as solid, it greatly expands upon the dwarves (and yes we saw a few glimpses of dwarve women!!!) and Thorin is one awesome character! He totally drives this onwards and he has some serious charisma and presence, he's like a more focused version of Aragon and full of purpose. Gandalf as always was his usual magical self whilst I think the younger Bilbo is a very solid character to. The characteristics of the Hobbits are portrayed very well in Bilbo and reads virtually like the book and it is great seeing this character grow.

As for the plot I don't find it lightweight at all, this theme of things not being right in Middle Earth was very prevalent and that sense of encroaching darkness not only makes this film vastly interesting it also puts the Hobbit in the same league as the LOTR trilogy. Why?

It adds vistas to the LOTR film universe, when Bilbo, Gandalf and the company of dwarves reached Rivendell I thought; this s*** is going down. It was all so seamless and the meeting of the High Council is something else entirely; it totally defines the direction of the film and undoubtedly the next two films of the Hobbit trilogy.

As for Gollum... Not only did they vastly improve the CGI I couldn't tell if the image of Gollum had that 'fake' quality, he looked like a highly detailed animated model with perfectly real skin and light tones. Moreover the scene where Bilbo is inches from Gollum ready to slay the creature... Incredibly powerful; not only did Gollum not have a clue as to how close his death was, but the look on Gollum's face was something else... And that's another amazing thing, things from the LOTR movies like how Bilbo found his special Elvish sword, how he found the ring and his encounter with the three trolls were all shown in the most perfect way.

With each passing minute this film grows on you and becomes more and more riveting. From the Dwarve's deep humming song in Bilbo's house, the magic of Rivendell, Sauron (aka the necromancer) himself to the Eagles! It was all there.

Granted a few of the action scenes defied belief: like Bilbo falling down at least fifty feet breaking his fall on some extra large squishy mushrooms, or the scene with those mountain rock monsters (all in the book so blame Tolkien!) or the scene where the company are careering down a ravine in the remnants of a broken section of bridge (but hey Gandalf was there so he must have cast some spell to somehow break the fall). However LOTR had its moments to: Aragon being blasted off the main wall in Helm's Deep, Gollum falling down a massive ravine and so forth. So it's forgiveable.

As for the dwarves they are as a whole enjoyable and work well with the story; just like Gimli and Legolas their parts are not so substantial but it doesn't take away from this film.

To sum up this is a more than worthy addition to Middle Earth, and the Hobbit is definitely in the same league as the LOTR trilogy. But if you haven't seen the LOTR trilogy, seen the extended director's cut or grasped the magic of J.R.R. Tolkien's universe then you may not enjoy this movie as much or more importantly understand the little details. And people moaned about this movie stretching on for too long! It did not feel stretched, in fact a trilogy is required to wrap all that has transpired and bridge the gap between this film and LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring.

And finally Galadrielle... She looks younger and more beautiful in this movie. Fairest of them all indeed!

In short Peter Jackson has done it again and this is another masterpiece!

Also, in the trailer there were scenes where Gandalf is walking up stairs, with his staff lit...

What happened to them? They could be in the next film, but, even more puzzling was the omission of the scene where Bilbo sees "the Sword that was Broken." That never happened in the scene in Rivendell.

Click to expand...

I don't think you get to both complain about the director not being able to cut anything and then complain about things being cut.

Click to expand...

I can if I want to. Especially since those shots were call-backs to scenes from Fellowship meant to get casual fans in the theater.

Speaking of the extended version, I wonder if it'll give us a glimpse of young Aragorn. He was about ten years old and known only as Estel at this point. It'd be cool if maybe Bilbo meets him, or something.

Click to expand...

I had been wondering if we would see a ten-year-old Aragorn in the film. However, in Peter Jackson's version of the LOTR universe, the seventeen-year gap between Bilbo's party and "The Shadow of the Past" ( Frodo's conversation with Gandalf about the Ring ) is completely eliminated. Thus, Jackson's The Hobbit takes place sixty years before the War of the Ring, as opposed to the 77 year difference in the books. Given that Aragorn is still said to be 87 in the extended edition of TTT, this would mean that Aragorn should be 27 at the time of Jackson's The Hobbit.

^^^Yes, the Jackson chronology does leave a 27 year old Aragorn somewhere offscreen. GCI however is not going to make Viggo Mortensen look 27 again. I suppose we'll just have to assume Arwen and Aragorn never came out of the bedroom.

The funny thing is that the Jackson amendment to the chronology was actually more awkward. In his version, there really is an impossibly short amount of time for Gandalf and Aragorn to search for Gollum; for Gollum to be captured, tortured, released and find his way back at least to Moria; for Gandalf to find the scroll.

Speaking of the extended version, I wonder if it'll give us a glimpse of young Aragorn. He was about ten years old and known only as Estel at this point. It'd be cool if maybe Bilbo meets him, or something.

Click to expand...

I had been wondering if we would see a ten-year-old Aragorn in the film. However, in Peter Jackson's version of the LOTR universe, the seventeen-year gap between Bilbo's party and "The Shadow of the Past" ( Frodo's conversation with Gandalf about the Ring ) is completely eliminated. Thus, Jackson's The Hobbit takes place sixty years before the War of the Ring, as opposed to the 77 year difference in the books. Given that Aragorn is still said to be 87 in the extended edition of TTT, this would mean that Aragorn should be 27 at the time of Jackson's The Hobbit.

Click to expand...

Do you know that for certain? There was no mention of a seventeen-year gap in the films, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Did Jackson ever actually say that the gap in time doesn't exist in the film universe?

Eliminating the time gap is probably a good thing, as is eliminating the ninety-odd years between Gandalf going to Dol Goldur and saying, "Yep, that's Sauron all right," and anyone actually bothering to do something about the fact that Sauron is sitting right there corrupting a large part of the north.